Hidden True Crime - TRIAL DAY 9 | Closing Arguments | Lori Vallow Daybell

Episode Date: April 22, 2025

Lori Vallow Daybell gives her closing arguments, and the Prosecution drives home the evidence presented in court. The Jury now deliberates About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. What a day in court. And I know, I know that I say that at the beginning of almost every recap, we have done since this trial began. But today was no exception. In fact, today was perhaps even more true than ever before because it was closing statements today by both Lori Valadebel

and the state. In fact, Lori Valadebel, as I have always stated, this is in her way, her opportunity to testify. She has chosen not to put on a defense, not to call witnesses, not to testify because the testimony would be question and answers. But she did and was able to put on her closing statements. It was her moment to testify and share what she wanted to say to the jury. So it was a very, very big day in court. And it did. It started with Lori Valo-Dabelle actually resting officially in front of the jury. So her not not rest or her. unrest or her maybe rest became official this morning. Let's jump in. Let's dive in because when the jury arrived, I'll just share, the judge asked for them to follow along as he read the instructions

into the record, the jury instruction. So this is before closing statements begin. The judge explained that it is their duty, the jury's duty, to decide the case by applying the instructions to the facts. They will determine what actually happened using only the evidence produced in court, only the evidence produced in court. The defendant, the defendant also known as Lori DeVow, has pleaded not guilty. And the state has the burden of proving her guilty by proving each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. Before the jury may convict the defendant of the charge crime, they must find that the state proved that the defendant committed a voluntary act.

The defendant's guilt or innocence is not affected by the fact that another person might have participated or cooperated in the crime because we all know that Alex Cox cooperated. The state does not need to prove motive, but the jury may consider motive or the lack thereof in reaching their verdict. The defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit to, first-degree murder. This requires proof that the defendant on or about July 11, 2019, with the intent to promote or aid in the commission of first-degree murder, agreed with Alex Cox to engage in conduct constituting the offense of first-degree murder. Again, first-degree premeditated murder requires proof that a person caused the death of another person and

intended or knew that he or she would cause the death of another person and acted with premeditation premeditation means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew a co-conspirator would kill another human being and that after forming that intent or knowledge reflected on the decision before the killing this reflection this reflecting on the decision regardless of how long is what distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or a heat of passion. So after the judge went through the rest of the instructions, court broke for lunch before

closing arguments began. So after lunch, Kay Woodcock's brother, Jerry, and her sister Susan joined her. So three of Charles Vallow's siblings were present in the court. courtroom. Brandon Boudreau and his wife are also there. They were also there that morning for jury instructions. And after lunch, again, Colby, Ryan appeared with his wife, Kelsey Ryan, and they were also present. As was Julie Brooks. Julie Brooks is the first cousin of Tammy DeBelle, and she just happened to also know Charles, Lori, JJ, and Tiley. Prosecutor Trina Kate issued the state's closing arguments and she spoke directly to the jury. So they positioned

where she spoke directly in front of all of the jurors, 14, 12 jurors, two alternates. And she spoke directly to them stating that Lori's words tell us that she was involved in Charles was killing. Her actions tell us the motive in this case, which is that she wanted to marry Chad Daybell and that she wanted to have Charles's life insurance money. The morning after Lori learned that she was no longer Charles's beneficiary, She texted Chad Daybell and said that it felt like a spear through her heart. She also wrote, quote, he changed it in March. It was probably Ned before we got rid of him, end quote.

Prosecutor Trina stated that it wasn't only Chad and Alex who knew about Lori's plan to kill Charles. Adam knew as well. Adam Cox, Lori's own brother. Adam knew about Lori's beliefs and all of the things she had been saying about Charles. He knew that Charles was scared for his life and that Adam wanted to help him conduct an intervention for Lori. And on July 11th, Charles texted Adam and said, quote, Alice here, end quote.

And Adam's first thought was to text, quote, they are planning something, end quote. And Adam, well, he was right. When Adam finally learned that Charles was dead three days later, he confronted their mother and said, Lori and Alex conspired to kill Charles. Well, and Lori's old friend Christina Atwood, she testified about a dinner they had a month before the shooting.

And at that dinner, Alex kept saying that he just wished he could kill Charles. And Lori talked about how she had been drugging him as well. Christina was so disturbed by this and told Lori that if something happened to Charles, she'd have to go to the police. Nancy Joe Hancock, she also testified that she and Charles spoke on the phone for hours. He confided in her all of the things that Lori. had been saying and that he was concerned for his safety. And on their date, the night before Charles was killed, Nancy Joe advised Charles to tell Lori

that he changed his life insurance beneficiary and that she wouldn't get that money if anything happened to him. Well, after this introduction, Trina then said that she was going to continue by splitting up the rest of her closing into three sections. The first section would be about the timeline and the motives. And the second would be about the jury instructions and the evidence that's been presented in court. And then the third would be the justification defenses and reasons why Lori thinks she and Alex had a valid reason to shoot and kill Charles. In Trina's opinion, there is no justification.

And what they did was absolutely a first degree premeditated execution. She did not mince words in execution. The timeline really began when Charles first learned about the emails, was sending to Chad, which showed Charles she was having an affair with Chad Deval, with Bobby. July 9th was the first time Charles came back to Arizona after learning about the affair. Motive. He booked Adam a flight as well so that Charles could, so that Adam could come and help Charles with an intervention.

And Adam asked Alex if he could stay at his place while on the trip and Alex greed. However, we know that when Adam arrived, Alex never responded back to any, uh, of his brothers calls or texts. And during this same time, Lori was texting Chad Daybell that she knew Adam was coming to town for an intervention, so-called intervention.

And during the trial, there were times when some questions or texts being read seemed irrelevant, but let's listen to how Trina tied some of that together here for the jury.

Take a listen. We see Lori then starting to round up the troops. Why does she do this? Because she wants to ensure that on July 11, It is Charles and only Charles coming to the house and not the intervention of Adam or Brandon or Zach coming over to help him. So she has Melanie.

Tells her she can't go to this wedding. She has to stay here. It's coming too ahead. This week will change everything. Tommy. Then we have July 9th, the text messages with Alice. She tells him, so the plot thickens call me when you can. He doesn't call her initially.

So she sends him another message, this one really letting him know. She specifically tells him, I'm going to need you to stay close to me the next couple days. Mel too, she can't go to Utah. She's got a job. They are planking some kind of intervention, but we want Mel, I'm not. melt out of the way so I've left alone.

She talks, I need to come get the stuff at your house tomorrow and secure it. Lots to do. Thank you for standing by me. It's all coming to a head this week. I will be like Nephi. I am told, and so will you. And then what happens?

This gets Alex to call and they talk for almost an hour. and our planning how they're going to stop the intervention, how they're going to be like Nephi. As we get to the 10th of July, and we continue through this timeline, we see Lori is talking religiously with Chad 149 minutes that morning. She's also texting Lori or texting Melanie Boodro, Melanie B, telling her that is important for the mission The mission for Melanie to help her by keeping Brandon distracted.

We saw those messages where Melanie says she'll pretend to be sick. We know that on the 10th, Adam arrives in Phoenix, and now we have Summer helping the defendant, letting her know what is going on with Adam and Zach.

Everyone is covered to ensure that Charles will be alone on the 11th. The night of of July 10th, Alex was already at Lori's house with his gun magazines of ammunition and a garbage bag with some clothes ready for their mission. Summer, Lori's sister gave Lori updates all night about what Adam and his son Zach were doing and how Adam was still waiting for Alex to text him back. And on July 11th, Lori and Chad started texting in the morning. GPS showed that Charles arrived at the house at 735 a.m. and at 736, Adam said, they are planning something. Let's listen

to Trina explain what happened after Charles went inside. But what we know is it's actually 12 minutes long. This is not a fast incident. In this 12 minutes, Lori Valo and her brother, Alex Cox, are doing their mission and they are being like Nephi. We know at 749, it's over. Lori has left in Charles Valo's car with his phone and JJ and Tiley.

We know that there are two phone calls between Alex and this defendant after she leaves. As Charles is laying, dying or dead on the floor, 752, 806, they talk. 47 minutes passes before Alex calls 911. 47 minutes to stage the scene. The police are advised when they arrive that the shooting just occurred and that CPR was given. Why is that important? Because you heard even during the interviews,

the police were trying to figure out this timeline, This timeline didn't make sense. At 848, almost an hour later, Lori Valo returns. And then we see that around 940, she is being interviewed at the Family Advocacy Center. Know that Lori Valo has Charles' phone that entire afternoon. You saw the PowerPoint from Detective Werther

showing that her phone by about 1236 is already phone, Alex's phone, and Charles' phone are all in the area of Alex's house out in Sandham. You see on her records that she again calls Chad Daybell. We see that Detective N-Klan calls her and leaves her a message. They don't leave immediately because what do we know? We know at 2.13 Alex is taking photos of Adams or flight reservations

from Charles' phone, not screenshots, but photos of the phone. At 218, Lori Vallow, who has not told Charles' kids, his family about his murder is calling the mortuary. A little bit after that, they still haven't left. She's calling chat again. And then by 311, we know that Charles' phone through the GPS data is back at 5531 Southport Peaks. And when asked about it, the defendant entirely handed over and provide the pin. They have no problem on how to get into it. They've already looked through it.

They don't need it anymore. Interestingly, even though the state only went through some of Chad and Lori's text messages during the trial, Trina said that all of them will be provided to the jury. That was a big moment to realize and understand. We saw their text pertaining to the insurance money and how upset Lori was about the beneficiary, but I'm sure the jury will be shocked to read her and Chad's steamier messages. They'll also get to see all. of their conversations about the zombies or disease or possessed evil spirits and their fringe

religious beliefs. And to show the money motive, Trina played Lori's call to the insurance company for the jury again. And in that call, Lori lied and told the insurance agent that Charles was accidentally shot, even though she told the police that she was there when Alex shot Charles on purpose. And even if it were self-defense, shooting someone to defend yourself isn't an accident. And it's definitely not when you shoot them twice or when someone is on the ground and you shoot them again. Let's listen to Trina talk a little bit more about Lori's motivations, including the money motive. When we talk about that motive and the anger by this defendant over not being the beneficiary, we know that even on July 28, so 10 days later,

She goes into Charles's computer to find the change of beneficiary farm. She texts that to Chad to show him, and she sends it to Kay and confronts her about it. Money. That's what she wanted. And Chad. So let's talk about Chad. The affair with Chad Daybeau. We know that she knew him as far back as November of 2018.

when he came to Arizona and stayed at Lori's house. You were told by Detective Duncan that there were recordings on her Lori for Style ICloud account of Chad Dayville here in Arizona for that preparing the people conference. You also heard that in the Lolletai, the later account that was created later, that in March of 2019, there were screenshots of flights to Idaho and back to Arizona with both Lori

Valov and Chad Daybell. This is during that time when she disappeared and Charles was taking care of JJ and she's off flying to Hawaii and Idaho living the good life with her soon-to-be husband. And then of course we know that come November 5th she actually marries Chad Daybell. That KK Walker email address. This was that June 29th, big change. What do we know that on April 21st, she created that account. She used her own phone number in creating it. And then she sent messages to Chad Daybell, Brother Daybell. We have that exhibit.

She pretends to be Karen Walker and invites him to Houston, because that's where she is at that time. She offers to use Charles's money to fly him out there and that he can stay at the house with her and her husband. In June of 2019, we see that Lori again uses that same account. But this time, she pretends to be Charles and invites Chad out to Arizona to help him with a book. And again, in Exhibit 289, you have those letters. Charles finds those.

And he lets everyone know he did. and he confronts Tammy, lets her know, confronts Chad, lets him know. And he certainly lets the defendant now that he knows. And now, the jig is up.

We see in these text messages that were recovered from the Eichlod accounts, whether they're under the Bubby contacts or under the Melanie 2 contact, this relationship between Lori and Chad. If you want to read the story, it kind of mimics them meeting in November, hooking up in hotels and discussing their love for each other.

When we are talking about emotive and a person who wants money and who has not worked for 13 years, who has had her husband pay for her homes, her phones, her phones, her cars, her cars, her cars allowing her to go to the temple and work out and go to lunch and restaurants. This is a big change in life if she loses all of this. But if she gets a million dollars, that's not so big of a difference, along with that Social Security she'll be getting. And then obviously we know that once Charles was out of the way, Lori and Chad were able to get married.

But what about those religious beliefs? Everyone that Lori knew, who she expressed them to, told you that they were not in line with the Church of Latter-day Saints. Everyone told you that she said things like she didn't need to repent. She didn't need forgiveness. She could do whatever she wanted now. But she was in a celestial state, translated, that she is spiritually and physically changing. That she's above the priesthood. That she knew who was dark and evil.

You saw those text messages, both about Charles and heard from people, as well as about Brandon and Zach and Adam, people who were helping Charles. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even, stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. Ora actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off.

They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.

Trina played some clips from Adam, Christina Atwood, and Serena Sharpe's testimonies to reiterate the fringe beliefs that Lori had. This included that various people in Lori's life, including Charles, were possessed by evil spirits and had different levels of light and dark. And as time went on, Lori's beliefs became even more separate or deviated from traditional LDS doctrine. And this was an interesting motive to bring in for me because while I agree, this is certainly a motive in Lori's Idaho trial. They actually specifically stated that the full motive was power, money, and sex. And while in Arizona, prosecutor Trina explains that part of the motive,

for Lori were her extreme religious beliefs justifying murder. Next, Prosecutor Trina moved on to discuss how all of the evidence will prove that Lori is guilty. To prove conspiracy to commit first degree murder, the state must prove three things. The first is that the defendant or co-conspirator caused the death of another person. And we know that Alex shot and killed Charles on July 11, 2019. Alex called 911 and indicated that he was the shooter. He was the only one left at home. It was his gun.

And Lori told the police that he did it as well. The second thing is that the defendant intended or knew that she or a co-conspirator would cause the death of another person. Let's listen to Trina explain how they proved this aspect. Take a listen. When we are looking at this case, we are looking at the defense. Bennett's words, actions, and motive. The words and actions of having her brother, Alex, come over on the tent with a gun so that he would be there when Charles came over to pick up JJ. The actions that day of taking Charles's phone, ensuring that he could not leave, that he could not take his son to school.

school. The defendant told the detectives how angry and screaming Charles was about the phone. She didn't just give it to him, throw it at him, tell him to get out, whatever you might do. She held onto it and told the police that she walked away with it as he's trying to grab it. The defendant's actions and words show us that she is the only. reason why Charles stayed in there and the only reason why Charles was shot. Then there's those 12 minutes. Defendant tried to pretend that this was a quick, angry scuffle. But Charles is there for 12 minutes. The defendant is there for 12 minutes. Alex is there for 12 minutes before she leaves. We look at her actions when she came back.

She told the police her brother was hit in the head with a bat. She never asks how he is. She's not concerned about his injury. She's not concerned about her husband being dead on the floor of her house, her child now without a father. The lack of words that she said there and her demeanor show again that she was well aware of what was going on and part of this incident. We look at her words to Chad,

that Charles changed his life insurance policy before we got rid of him. They show her intent to kill Charles. And again, we look at the motive, money and Chad. When did this happen the first time Charles came back into town after his. he found out about the affair. That was actually an important part of this trial for me, understanding that bit of timeline, that once Charles understood that his wife was having an affair with Chad Daybill

and called her out and Chad out and wrote Tammy and contacted Chad, he did not see his wife, Lori, again, until the morning he was shot and killed. And I'm glad the prosecutor Trina brought that home. The third thing that the state has to prove is that the defendant or co-conspirator acted with premeditation. And premeditation means that the defendant or co-conspirator intended to kill another human being. And after forming that intent, they reflected on the decision before the killing. And this reflection, regardless of how long is what distinguishes first-degree murder from second-degree murder.

An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or a heat of passion. Let's listen to how Trina believes the state has proved premeditation. By July 9th, or when we start having this planning that we're talking about, we know that Lori Valo is living in a house paid for by Charles Valo. we know from even her statements to detective end plan that she doesn't like charles is what she says but charles won't file for a divorce we know from her words and text messages that she wants to be with chad day bell but charles is her cash now she hasn't worked he pays rent car cell phones her travel And so as far back as June 9th, we're already hearing that Alex and Lori would like to not just get rid of Charles, but killed him.

But if you think that June 9th wasn't the beginning of this planning, this idea, this concept that Lori and her brother have of getting rid of Charles, this evil, dark, possessed person, that we know on the 9th that there is. definitely a plan by this defendant. And we see that through those text messages with Melanie, with Summer, with Alex, where she speaks of the mission, where she talks about telling Melanie, you can't leave. You got to pretend to be sick and stay here and keep track of Brandon so he doesn't come help Charles. He can't be in the picture. We need to stay here to defend ourselves. from an intervention the 10th again we have Melanie who is talking to her and saying or that she wants to just go to this wedding and what does Lori tell her no you have to stay here for the mission the mission of stopping an intervention now as we continue through the

ninth we see Lori having everyone lined up to help her Alex where he again is told that he will be like mehai just like her now Lori tells him it's an intervention everyone knows Adam told you what's an intervention it's talking to someone it's common language but that's not what the defendant wants to happen she doesn't want Charles to divorce her loses money she doesn't want this intervention to happen where she loses her temple recommend what she wants is to be like nephi and get rid of her husband uh well nephi was a prophet in the book of mormon he's the first chapter he was a prophet very humble and faithful servant of the lord um and um ironically enough i heard his uh brothers tried to kill

him at one point. But he actually ended up going to Jerusalem to get these plates back. And he was runoff, came back, and then went back again because the Lord asked him to. And when he did, the king Laban, who was actually a wicked king, was. was laying on the ground drunk in front of them. And Nephi was told to kill Laban. Who was he told by? The spirit or, yeah, God. So God was using a Holy Spirit to tell him to kill Laban.

Yes. Yes, he did. Is that something he anguished over? Yes. but ultimately it was a justified killing. Yes. You heard from Detective Duncan that everyone he spoke with gave this same story. And again, the defendant questioned others about this story.

But what we've heard is from Detective Duncan and from Adam that Nephi is this justified killing. When we think about her religious beliefs in what she's been telling people about not needing to repent, about telling people who is dark and evil, a zombie or a zee, that she is above the priesthood, it makes sense that she feels justified in determining who should live or die, just as she told her brother on the night. And we know that, in fact, we're talking about a justified killing. because Alex brought a gun over. He didn't bring the book of Mormon to talk to Charles about something. He didn't bring a friend to try to record Charles saying something.

He brought a gun with him. And then he waited there for his sister's husband to come into the house so he could kill him. What we see is a very planned. premeditated murder. Let's talk about some additional premeditation. Again, as we're looking at summer, we see on the 10th that Lori is having her sister update her on where Adam and Zach are staying so she knows they're not with Charles. They're not coming over. They're not going to be interfering with their justified killing. And there's that 12 minute time or the defendant desperately wanted to rewrite the timeline as they told the police that day

this just happened was very quick but it wasn't it was 12 minutes Charles arrives at 737 and Lori leaves at 749 during this time is when that plan that premeditated murder occurred So let's talk about that as well. The evidence at the scene, the physical evidence, supports this premeditated murder. Alex fired two shots. One of them went through Charles' center mast, exited out his back, and went into the floorboard. The second one, Charles was on the floor, on his back. bleeding out still able to move and we know that because he had blood on his left hand

and he was executed as he lay there on the ground in that time when we talk about premeditation and reflection as Adam had to move his hand down reposition the gun and discharge and pull the trigger one more time that is premeditated first-degree murder no matter what you believe before that. Before we continue, many are asking about the jury during this entire closing statement from the state. They were listening intently. They were listening. They were watching. This jury is a difficult one to read. I wish, you know, maybe Dr. John could be in court with me and he could give me a lot on all of their nonverbals. For me, I don't see much. I see, though, that they were

very interested and paying attention today. Many are asking about how many, again, we have, we have 14 at this moment, two alternates that will be chosen at the end of these statements as well as 12 jurors. Next, prosecutor Trina discussed some of the physical evidence left at the scene, including the defect in the wood floor under Charles's left shoulder. Dr. Baumgartner, stated that the wound on his shoulder, Charles's shoulder, was shored, meaning that Charles had to have been lying down when he was shot the second time. And after that, Lori and Alex waited to call 911 until they were sure that Charles was dead because that was the goal to kill Charles.

Trina then discussed the aspect of conspiracy. She went back through all of the discussions between Lori and Chad, Lori and Alex being like Nephi, inviting Alex over with his gun, taking Charles's phone away, all of which shows that this was planned. Lori knew what Alex was going to do. Trina also played clips from Lori's police interview, where she explained taking away Charles's phone, even though he was allegedly screaming at her to give it back.

This never, you know, it helps me understand exactly what's going on. You are so concerned for your safety that you invite your brother over with a gun to protect you and then start a fight by refusing to give. back Charles's phone. Trina stated that Lori incorporated things she learned from going through Charles's text messages into her interview, like Adam coming into town and the intervention they planned. Trina also pointed out how ironic it was for Lori to act so concerned about Charles, leaving JJ in the car for a few minutes,

but not about her brother Alex bringing a loaded, unsecured gun into the house. Thank you. Couldn't agree more. Plus, it was Lori's fault that JJ was in the car so long to begin with because she's the one who refused to give Charles's phone back to him. I'm glad she drove this home. The next thing discussed was how the scene was staged even after the shooting, even though Alex claimed to have attempted CPR, and he stated that on the 911 call that the jury never got to see. But he claimed he attempted CPR, and the first responders testified that they saw no signs that CPR had been given. It was also clear that Alex had been dead longer than Alex and Lori claimed because his skin was already modeled and there was levidity.

And during this time, we did see photos of Charles deceased on the floor and his siblings all looked down. They did not look at those photos. I can't imagine what they were feeling. The bat was placed to the right of Charles's head, hence this stage scene. Even though his sister Kay Woodcock testified that Charles was a no way. left-handed pitcher and left-handed batter. There was also the one-inch cut that Alex kept rubbing, which Trina believes was a way to make sure that this little cut kept bleeding. There was no blood at the scene that proves that Alex was struck in the head or any scuffle like Lori claimed.

Lori left a pair of shoes by the front door to make it appear as though she had to run out of the house quickly, but Trina stated that in the Walgroom's footage, she had something on her feet. before they purchased the flip-flops. Boom. This is important. So many of you have pointed this out that in the surveillance video, Lori actually had flip-flops on despite telling the jury and testifying in court that she was barefoot and ran out without any shoes on, that the reason she had to go to Walgreens to buy flip-flops because she had no shoes.

Many wondered why this wasn't stated in trial. Well, it was saved for closing statements. Prosecutor Trina stating that it was clear that in the Walgreens footage, Lori had something on her feet before they purchased the flip-flops. Let's listen to what Trina had to say about Lori's baseball bat story versus the actual evidence. Take a listen. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought. and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records

and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. Ora actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app. You get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. Orra gives you all of it,

together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. When you said he, when you were going around and he was coming at you with the bat, how is he holding the bat? Just like that? Like backwards? Like he was swinging, like swinging it backwards? He would have just swing it backwards at me, not frontward.

So Lori Val was detective and planned that Charles has swinging the bat backwards. Now, if the bat was like this when he was shot, The arm would have been shot. It covers his center mass. So we know he wasn't here. So if he's out here, where would the bat go? Down? Out.

Somewhere that way to his left. He would not end up thrown up above him. And if it wasn't there again, Charles would have been shot through the arm. Obviously, Alex forgot that Charles was left-handed. So when he placed that like he was coming at him with a bat, their stories didn't quite match up with the evidence. So if we rely on Lori's story of how Charles was holding the bat,

then there's zero way that that bat would end up where it ended up. And again, we know he's left-handed from not only Kay, but his own admissions of that blood on his hand. So we see this scene is staged, this bat, that is so necessary to try to ensure this justified killing is legally justified and not just spiritually justified. When we talk about the scene as well, and you're looking at where Charles was at least when that second shot went through him. You can see in a photograph to the right, the shot to Charles' chest right between his nipples and the shot to Charles' abdomen down lower. We know that that first shot through his chest that Charles would have been facing a little more towards the open area there where we see the hallway and the kitchen.

we know that because there was the bullet trajectory Detective Cootie's told me that entered that far east wall. We know there was stifling, and so the defendant would have been, well, her brother would have been within two to four feet of the muzzle of that gun within Charles two to four feet. We know from the flat with that injury to the back of his head that he didn't fall straight back.

We know from the blood on his hand that he was still alive after he was shot. And we know the lack of stifling for that shot to his abdomen and that trajectory, and even the defendant's own statements that she saw her brother at Charles' feet, that he would have stood there at Charles' feet when he fired that second shot as he was laying on the floor. You have the bat, Exhibit 249.

You can look at the edge of it. You see the photograph of the edge of it. There is no blood. and no damage to this bat. Regardless of how many times the defendant was hoping that blood was invisible, we have all cut ourselves and seen that blood is red. And there was no blood on this bat. There is no blood on this bat.

There is no damage to this bat. So you have a semi-pro professional, semi-professional baseball player who has a bat in his hand. and he sees someone with a gun and doesn't beat him with it, take his head off with it, knock him unconscious with it. Instead, all we see on this bat is zero damage and two partial prints. No prints of a body or smushed skin on it,

someone that's sweating from a fight that's left a large arm print on it or anything else? Nope, just two partial little prints on it. When you think about what is there and what isn't there, does the evidence of this bat fit in at all? It doesn't. The next thing Trina discussed was the credibility of witnesses, including Lori.

She explained that Lori is really the only one who has a reason and motivation to be untruthful, and it's clear she has in the past. And one example of this was in her police interview. Lori told Detective Inclean that she and Charles were separated. However, when she needed to get money, she told the social security agent that they were still living together and didn't report when she got remarried to Chad Daybell. All of these things go against her credibility. And the last topic, Prosecutor Trina discussed, were the various justification defenses.

The three were self-defense, defense of a third person, and crime prevention. The use of deadly physical force is not justified in response to verbal provocation or if the defendant or co-conspirator provoked the other person. This situation is also not self-defense because the physical evidence shows that Charles did not use the bat. And even if he did, no one would have been justified in shooting someone who is lying on the ground. that just simply can't happen in self-defense. When Charles was on the ground and shot for a second time, he was no longer posing a threat to anyone. And the third person justification doesn't work either

because the children were outside. And Lori claimed to have gone around the corner and was no longer in danger. For the crime prevention justification, this would include preventing Charles from committing aggravated assault. However, again, Lori said she was no longer in the room, so Alex would not have been preventing Charles from assaulting her.

So let's listen to this last bit that Trina has to say about mere presence. Take a listen. There's mere presence. You're told that guilt cannot be established by a defendant's mere presence at the crime scene, near association with another person at the crime scene, or near knowledge that crime is being committed. Bore Vala wasn't just present at this crime scene. She brought her brother to the crime scene.

She ensured that he brought a gun with him. She ensured that JJ was outside and she ensured that Charles stayed inside. She was not merely present. She was a person who was actively participating in this crime. Ladies and gentlemen, we have talked about the evidence in this case. Evidence that was presented to you for witnesses who took the stand and exhibits that were admitted for you to review. Remember the evidence of Lori Ballo's motive.

Charles's life insurance, Chad Daybell. Remember Lori Ballo's own words of wanting to get rid of Charles, of drugging him, her acceptance of her brother's statements that he wanted to kill Charles, as she used Melanie and Summer to plan her mission and ensure that Charles didn't have help. and Brandon or Zach or Adam. Her words to Alex about it all coming to a head

that he had to stay near her and they would be like Nephi, justified in killing Charles. And finally her words to Chad Daybill on July 18th, confessing to the killing when she said Charles had changed the life insurance before we got rid of him. Look at her actions and demeanor, having her brother come over on the 10th. to her house with a loaded 45-palber handgun,

creating the one and only reason why Charles stayed inside the house, why he didn't just take JJ to school. The 12 minutes that Charles is at the house before Lori leaves in the car, the 47 minutes after that before they call 911, her demeanor when she comes back, not caring that anyone has been hurt, her demeanor on the bodyborne camera during her interview, what you heard about during the drive,

think about the credibility, how she cried for you in her opening statement. You certainly didn't see her cry on that body camera footage. You didn't hear about her crying as she was being driven to the family advocacy center, and you did not see her cry in her interview. you. Finally, think about the physical evidence that proves that Lori and Alex staged this scene, that Charles was never in possession of that bat when he was shot by Alex or either of the shots.

That instead he was executed that day where this defendant's benefit. The physical evidence disproves beyond a reasonable doubt that Lori Ballo and Alex Cox were justified. under the law and killing Charles. The jury instructions tell you to use reason, common sense, and experience. Charles Valo is dead today because this defendant, and her brother Alex Cox conspired to kill him. They planned it out, and they had their weapons, and they orchestrated a way to ensure that Charles was back in the house where he was shot and killed from money and Chad Daybell. The evidence proves to you that Laurie Ballow, Daybell,

is guilty of conspiracy to commit first free murder. And the state asks you to hold her accountable and find her guilty. Thank you. I thought that prosecutor Trinicay did a great job with her closing statements. I do wish she would have emphasized that Nephi absolutely is that Nephi, the Nephi that killed Laban. it is actually in the charging documents when they charged Lori with conspiracy to kill her husband, Charles Vallow, that her friend Zulema, which I realize was not a witness in this case.

Zulema texted a friend named Julie to say it was a Nephi and Laban ending confirming exactly what story we all know this to be. But nonetheless, I think she did an excellent job. And after a 15 minute break so that we could all use the restroom and grab drinks, it was Lori's turn to give her closing statements, her closing arguments, her testimony in a way, not literal testimony, but what I think she considered her testimony. And I think it's safe to say that everybody wants to see how Lori is going to wrap up her case, especially since she actually didn't even put forth any evidence or witnesses.

So we're going to go ahead and play her whole closing, which wasn't much shorter than the states, but which was much shorter. I was going to say, sorry, it was much shorter than the state. So we're going to listen to this entire closing and then we're going to talk about it. Just take a listen. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the state of Arizona has the 100%

burden of proving that I committed a crime, a grievous crime, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder of my husband Charles Fallow. The state has the burden of proving to you that this event was not self-defense. In your jury instruction under the instruction, use of force and crime prevention, the last line reads, if the state fails to carry this burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty. In the law, under your jury instruction titled justification for defense of a third party, the last line reads,

if the state fails to carry this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty. Under your jury instruction titled justification for self-defense, the last line reads, if the state fails to carry this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty. In your jury instruction, under presumption of innocence, it states,

the law does not require the defendant to prove innocence. Every defendant is presumed by law to be innocent. Under the burden of proof, it explains that the state's burden is this. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. If on the other hand, you think there's a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty. In Arizona, self-defense is defined as not being a crime. So let's look at what we've learned in this trial. We learned that a shooting occurred and that 911 was called, that law enforcement was notified,

We learned that fire, EMS, and Chandler police arrived at the scene. We learned that my brother, Alex Cox, came out of the house with his hands up as directed by 9-1-1 and was questioned by the police in the driveway. We learned that I came up with my daughter, Tiley, and we were told to wait by the car until police would speak with us. We learned from Detective Inklund on the stand that we asked for Tiley's medication from the house, or her panic attacks, but it was not given to her. We learned that eventually my brother Alex was taken in a police car to the Chandler Police Department, uncuffed.

We learned in this trial that my daughter, Tiley and I were also taken to Chandler Police Department in a police van. We heard from Detective Inklund's testimony that her goal was to make small talk with us. and the jury will determine what the testimony did or did not show that her goal was to make the small talk with us and all the way to the station so she could speak with us separately before we would talk about what actually happened we learned that all three of us were separated and taken to three interview rooms where we each told police of the events of the day each from our own perspectives and answered all questions after we're separated and taken to three interview rooms where we each told police of the events of the day each from our own perspectives and answered all questions after of us. We saw snippets of that interview in the trial here. The state did not show you the entire interview. Most of my police interview is admitted, though, into evidence in this exhibit.

It's number 286. And I would encourage you to watch that entire interview when you start your deliberations. It is important. It is important for you to determine for yourselves my demeanor and not listen to anyone else. You can see it with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears. We heard from several witnesses that because this event was almost six years ago, that their memories of the events and statements were probably better back then. Well, my police interview happened that very morning, and I told the police the events from my perspective.

at that time. It is admitted into evidence and will answer many of your questions. You did not see Tiley's interview, but we did learn from Detective Inklund that she did an interview that morning as well. You did not see Alex's interview, but we learned that Alex was interviewed that morning by Detective Moffat, the original case agent, whom we did not hear from in this trial. The state chose not to show you those interviews. Objection on or let you listen to the 911 call.

The jury shall disregard that last statement. Okay, the jury can only consider what was admitted into evidence. We learned in this trial from Officer Kautheim's testimony that Alex was injured on the back of his head with a bump and according to his testimony, a one-inch laceration. We did not see those pictures documenting that injury as well. We learned in this trial that we did not know the three of us that our interviews were being recorded. We learned that Alex's phone was taken by police and put into an evidence bag, according to Detective Duncan, and that no digital copy of Alex's phone was taken by the Chandler Police Department, even though this is their normal protocol.

We learned that Alex's phone was returned to him that same day with a little. no further inquiries. We learned that after my interview and Tiley's interview that we were introduced to a victim's advocate and that gave us further instructions in another room where Tiley and I were reunited. We learned that soon after that, all three of us, Alex, Tiley and myself, were taken in another van and dropped off back at our house. We learned that we were instructed at that time that we could not enter the house yet, that we were directed by law enforcement to take the rental car since all three of our cars were inside the police tape. We were directed to return later in the afternoon when the scene was cleaned up.

We learned in this trial that we did as directed and left the house in the rental car close to 12 p.m. We learned that we did not return to the house until contacted by Detective Inklund to return to the house so that Alex could walk through, walk the detectives through what they call a walkthrough. We learned that many detectives were present during that walkthrough with Alex. We learned that Detective Duncan was there, Detective Coons was there, Detective Moffat was there, Detective Werther was there, and an officer with a body cam was there. And yet we were told by Detective Duncan, the case agent on this case on the stand, that because of some problem, the walkthrough was not recorded.

Detective Duncan also informed us that he does not know if any of the people people present wrote a report about it. We can infer from Detective Duncan's testimony and the fact that we don't have an evidence any body cam footage of the walkthrough and no reports talking about it that there are none, even though this would be crucial evidence for you the jury to have. Sustained the jury should disregard that comment. Again, the jury can only consider evidence that was admitted in the testimony. I'm sorry, testimony that was admitted into evidence or exhibits that were admitted into evidence. The state of Arizona has the obligation to show you evidence to prove that this event was not self-defense, as stated by the only three witnesses. So why not show you, show the jury all the evidence that they gathered?

Again, sustained, the jury can only consider the evidence and testimony that was admitted into evidence. We learned in this trial that Alex fully cooperated with law enforcement. We learned that my daughter Tiley fully cooperated with law enforcement. We learned that I fully cooperated with law enforcement. We learned that law enforcement treated all of us that day kindly and courteously on July 11, 2019. That law enforcement treated us that day like this was self-defense. We were not given instructions to stay in town.

We were not given instructions that we were under investigation of any kind. On July 11th, 2019, we were interviewed by Chandler Police and released with no further instructions. We learned that Chandler police put out a press release that day on July 11th. I'll sustain that objection to the extent the jury is to determine what the facts did or did not establish. Under Arizona law. I had the right to self-defense. Tiley had the right to self-defense.

Alex had the right to self-defense. This event was not planned or expected. It was shocking. We learned in this trial that Chandler Police Department neglected to do a thorough investigation. We learned that they did not swab Alex's hands for gunpowder residue. We learned that they did not swab my hands for gunpowder residue. We learned that they did not swab Tiley's hands for gunpowder residue.

We learned that they did not lumen all the gun. We learned that they did not lumen all the bat. They did not test the DNA on the bat that they collected. They did not test the floorboard. They did not test the projectile. They did not test my husband's shirt. They did not search the rental car. They did not search any of our three cars that were there at the scene.

They did not test the gun until over five years later. The Chandler Police Department did treat this. event just like it was self-defense and a tragic family event we learned in this trial that Charles and I were obviously having marital problems regardless of what was happening in our marriage at the time on July 11th this was self-defense when Tyley came out with a bat to protect me her mother Charles did not have to take the bat from Tyley and start swinging at At 62 years old, Charles had a choice that day and could have put the bat down. A two-minute period changed our lives forever.

How are you supposed to choose between three people you love, your husband, your daughter, your brother? All right, hold on. All right. I'll caution the defendant not to testify about things that were not entered into evidence. How can you decide for another person if they feel threatened? Why does the state want to blame to someone? It's a reasonable person standard, not the standard of the person. I'm sure you'll point that out in rebuttal.

I'll allow the argument as that inference. Go ahead. Why does the state want to blame someone for this tragic event? What evidence did the state show you in this trial that I wanted harm to come to my husband? We learned in this trial that I was praying to, for my husband. We learned in this trial that even though my husband and I were having marital issues, that we were both trying to do the best things for our son with special needs, JJ. We learned in this trial that I was shocked that Charles had changed his life insurance policy,

but I was not angry, as the state alleges. In the phone call, we heard from the insurance company, we heard that I was disappointed for our children, our grown children, as well as our children still at home, but I was not angry. My husband Charles was providing for our children still at home. I had no motive to change that. We heard a lot in this trial about the Book of Mormon prophet named Nephi. This is the state's evidence to murder over self-defense, and it is utterly ridiculous. We heard from Detective Duncan, who admitted on the stand that he had no idea what

what I meant in the text message when I said, we will be like Nephi. In Mormon culture, Nephi signifies strong faith, perseverance, and courage. Right. Sustained. The state's attempt to misconstrue the positive text message about a wonderful religious figure Nephi

and try to turn it into an order to kill someone is absurd. This is an attempt by the state. to try to retrofit a crime that doesn't exist. This event was not a crime. It was a tragedy. Don't let them turn my family tragedy into a crime. When I'm done speaking to you, the state gets to get up and rebut all that I've told you.

They've got to have the last word, so to speak, because it is 100% their burden to prove to you that I committed a crime. and you won't be allowed to hear from me again. So I want you to remember that it is the state's job to prove to you that I committed a crime. And if you have not seen the evidence that leaves you firmly convinced

that I have committed this very crime, then the state failed to show you the evidence that you need. Because I did not commit this crime. The only interview, the state entered to evidence is mine. So I encourage you to go watch it. I told you just what happened that day, just the way it happened. The state put forth a bunch of evidence in this trial in an effort to make you dislike me to try to attack my character so that you would just say guilty no matter what evidence they showed you, but only you get to decide. The state put up witnesses that had

zero knowledge of a conspiracy. The state did not show you evidence of an agreement to commit murder. They showed you evidence of a family tragedy, and then they showed you the sad effects of a family torn apart because of that tragedy. Zootopia 2 has come home to Disney Plus. Let's go. Get ready for a new case. We're going to crack this case and prove for a decoranist partners of all time.

friends. You are Gary Destnake. And your last name? The Snake. Dream Team. Good Habitat. Zootopia has a secret reptile population. You can watch the record-breaking phenomenon at home. You're clearly working at. Zootopia, too. Now available on Disney Plus rated PG. So let's just unpack a little bit of that. That's maddening to watch again. Actually, I didn't know that I would get so emotional listening to it again after sitting in the courtroom listening to it. But to say that she wanted the best for JJ when we know JJ's fate. To say that Tiley deserved to protect herself with self-defense when we know Tiley's fate.

To continue to try to bring up Tiley over and over and over again to speak for for the little girl that she is convicted of murdering beyond the grave and tell us what she thinks is maddening. It is maddening. We don't know what the jury knows or has figured out. They are not sequestered. Many of you have been asking. It is my guess, Lauren's guess,

that some of the jurors may be likely know by now that Lori is a convicted murderer of her own children. but I'm going to also suspect that some do not. And to hear her twist and use her children to claim she was protecting her family is something that is so difficult to listen to over and over and over again. Some of the things that you've pointed out, one too many tragedies in the, in one, in one family because of you, Chad and Alex. She explains

that she was gas sliding. The juror is the entire statement. I agree. Silver Fox states, you didn't call Tiley as a witness, we'll tell the jury why. We learned that Lori is nonchalant about following the law and having a moral compass.

We learned that Lori lied and what she said, the evidence will show. The jury will certainly be horrified if they acquit Lori. And Chloe states, you are the only tragedy, Lori. Someone else so did. Leaving JJ for a month is not caring about your child. I also find it interesting that Lori states that what the jury can do back there as they deliberate

is to watch her entire interview with the Chandler Police Department the day that Charles was killed because according to Lori, you know, they cherry pick certain parts to show the jury. And she wants everyone to watch the entire thing. But that is her saving grace. Why? Because Lori has that much faith in herself and how she can twist things. And, you know, word salad. It's so shocking to think that she could convince anyone.

And if the jury just listens to her entire interview that day, they will see that. the, that it was all self-defense, that she is that convincing. Let's also talk about, and I want to point this out, John and I, Dr. John, my co-host, and I actually, while I was home on Easter Sunday, just yesterday, we recorded a subscriber only on Apple and Patreon podcast about this last week of trial and how really watching Lori throughout this trial made us realize just how competent she is that we questioned everything. Was she ever incomminent? Because she knows what she is doing.

And when it comes to the Nephi story, we all know that it is the Nephi, that it is the Nephi who killed Laban that she is referring to. And for her to imply otherwise so upset and so shocking, just shows you how much she is willing to manipulate and lie and twist and gaslight. Well, after Lori's closing, the state had a chance, though, luckily to give a rebuttal, it is always the state that concludes. So luckily, Lori's testimony is sandwiched with the state. And in other words, prosecutor Trina Kay was able to have the last words.

And we will go ahead and listen to that as well, because afterwards, the jury is going to be released to deliberate so let's listen to what they heard right before take a listen the execution of charles valo is not a family tragedy there is nothing that you can say about shooting a man as he lay on the ground that you can try to construe in any way to make that a family tragedy the defendant not Alex Cox. Alex is involved in it because that is her co-conspirator. We are not here to determine his guilt, albeit it is quite obvious. This defendant wants you to just look at one piece and she wants you to hope that there's only a person who will say, I saw, I heard the conspiracy, but what

did you hear at every instruction is that you can look to other evidence to show that. Ms. Defendant wants you to forget about her words and pretend that when she told her lover, her soon-to-be husband, we got rid of him, that he changed the life insurance before we got rid of him, that that somehow means what? That they killed. him. And he changed his life insurance before they killed him. What does that tell you that tells you motive? And that tells you who did it. This defendant is one of those weak because she's writing it. She wants you to pretend that when she is talking about Charles, her months acquiescing and agreeing to her brother killing him, having people tell her that it's wrong.

Having people know that they're planning something, that those words don't mean exactly what they are. We got rid of him, this defendant. The state, of course, has the burden, and that's how it should be. But every one of those justification defenses falls short when you look at the conspiracy itself. When they got rid of him, they did it by planning it. There is no reason that Alex Cox came over to this defendant's house with a loaded gun and waited for Charles to come inside, held there by this defendant using the cell phone. That is conspiracy. That is planning. That is premeditated. You can absolutely watch that whole video.

That's why the state included that for you. What you're going to see is that Lori Valo doesn't cry. She is not truthful as we've gone through. Her timeline is absolutely wrong. She tells the detectives it's quick. It's 12 minutes. She wants you to believe that the police could understand all of this that day, but what did you hear?

Is that all the police could tell initially was that the timeline was off. And then they started learning that the physical evidence seemed to be showing that Charles was executed on the floor, but they needed to see if the medical examiner agreed with them two days later. And then they needed to pull all those ICloud accounts, phone records, and go through terabytes of data to bring forth these things that you have now learned and whole. They interviewed these people who learned of the defendants, religious beliefs, that she was exalted, that she was celestial being, that she didn't have to repent.

Of course, she thought she was Nephi. We learned that the physical evidence on Charles and at the same, scene show us that he was executed. And every single one of those defenses that the defendant has asked you to look at, the state has met its burden. Because even if you somehow believe that Charles actually had that bat and it wasn't staged like the rest of the scene with the shoes and the lack of blood there, that second shot is not just a for self-defense, crime prevention, or third-party defense. Arizona law does not allow you to execute a man on the ground.

The defendant wants you to believe she was shocked and surprised by this, and yet she goes wandering around, goes to Burger King, Walgreens, drops off her kid, comes back and jokes about her neighbors. Not one action of a person shocked, surprised. She wants you to feel bad for her daughter, Tiley. You saw her there. You heard from the detectives. She's also not shocked, crying, upset, worried.

And you saw Alex. Same demeanor. Why? They've had 47 minutes to work it all out. Go through Charles's phone, figure out what they're going to say. They've talked on the phone twice in this time period. This case relies upon all of the investigation that the police did. that day when they knew that timeline was wrong,

that day when they started to understand that the physical evidence at the scene was staged and wrong and didn't match what the defendant was saying. And then all of the evidence after that, culminating when this defendant told the man that she married later that she was having an affair with, as many times as she wants to say, Charles was my husband. She didn't want him as her husband. She wanted Chad Daybill. She wanted that life insurance policy, and yes, she was angry about it. And she said, we got rid of him. That is her confession to you. That is why she is guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Thank you.

Let's be honest. Buying cannabis shouldn't be complicated, sketchy or low-quality. That's why I want to tell you about mood.com. That's M-O-O-D.com. Mood ships federally legal cannabis straight to your door. No medical card, no hassle. And here's the kicker. The quality is better than anything you'll find at your local dispensary. Yeah, I said it.

Whether you're into edibles, concentrates, flour, or just looking to explore, you'll find it all at mood. And it's not just the variety that makes them stand out. Every product is sourced from small American-owned fans. family farms that care deeply about what they grow. It's cannabis you can trust, delivered discreetly, and ready to elevate your mood. And because you're a listener, you get 20% off your first order. Just head to mood.com. That's M-O-O-O-D.com to get started. I thought that prosecutor Trinicay really drove it home in those final words, that final statement. And I agree that was like a confession when Lori stated, we got rid of it.

him. You do not shoot someone in self-defense when they are on the floor. Bottom line. Bottom line. Afterwards, after the state concluded their rebuttal, the alternate jurors were chosen. And I love this. That means that sticks were drawn. This is what they do in every courtroom when the alternate jurors are chosen. With all the technology we have, there's nothing like the stick draw for alternate jurors. And I mean that. There is no mistaking a stick, no questions about whether or not they were drawn appropriately. In other words, we have 14 jurors left. We started with 16. We only have 14 left because two were excused early in the trial. And only 12 of them are going to deliberate. But we had to have those extras just in case something happened to another. And so they draw to find out

which two will be the alternate, which will not be going back to deliberate. And many have been wondering because there are only two women on this jury, which means technically if two women were picked the stick to be alternate jurors, this could be a full male jury. I've never seen that before. But it was juror 14 and juror five that were picked to not deliberate. And both of them are males, meaning that two of the 12 jurors will be female.

So 10 men and two women will now deliberate and come with a verdict guilty or not. At that moment, we were all asked to leave the courtroom and the jurors were asked to go back and start deliberating. Well, minutes later, we were told that they were done. So we got settled. We thought we were there until 5 p.m. while they deliberated. Or longer, because technically, I think a jury could go longer

if they wanted. But we were quickly told that they were done for the night. And I assume that means that the jury that they were given the option to start deliberations right then and there, or to go home and begin tomorrow. And again, they are not sequestered, which means they just get to go home. So as I started heading to the elevator to leave the courthouse, because the day had concluded, pushed the down button on the elevator and was waiting for. And was waiting for, the elevator doors to open. At that moment, all of the jurors were filed past us and we were told, sorry, actually, we're taking this elevator. And they moved past us and went into the elevator to go downstairs and exit the courthouse. And so after they went down, I went down and walked out

and they all just simply walked out of the courthouse and they were with someone. They all went out together and we're on their way home. So we are officially on verdict watch here at Hidden True Crime. And we will be in chat all day tomorrow with our verdict watch. It's going to send this to the verdict watch. And again, we will be in chat all day. I will be at the courthouse all day waiting. I will be bringing you the latest updates all day from the courthouse. And, and let's hope that there is a verdict tomorrow. I always have this thing that if they come back quickly, it makes sense.

If they don't, I start to get nervous. But I really feel like the state proved their case. I really, really do. Additionally, we were told this. I want you to know that we received an email from someone whose husband works for the Merik Kopa, County Attorney's Office, the prosecutor's office. And they said that after an attorney wins a case, they bring in Justice Donuts for the Bureau to acknowledge that there, that no one wins a case

alone. So here's to hoping that Charles Valo's Justice Donuts arrive this week. I love that. I wanted to share that. Nobody wins a case alone. So me. So goodbye, enchiladas. Hello donuts. Let's hope. I also want to remind everyone that we did do a subscription only podcast with Dr. John, my co-host. It is on Apple subscription or at patreon.com slash hidden to crime. We will have links to those in the description of this episode. And also, merchandise is still available. Nonchalant, you know, to remind us all of what Lori should have be. And also don't flatter yourself, Nancy Joe merch. We love Nancy Joe over here at Hidden 2 Crime.

That is the latest. That is what is going on. So again, hit subscribe, hit notifications because during Verdict Watch, we don't know what's going on. We don't know where I will be appearing. We don't know when or why or how. So stick with us and may justice be served. All right. We'll see everyone. Thanks. Bye. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day.

Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection.

With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.